Talk:Key:social facility

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

social_facility:for queries

  • General: It'd be nice if the core values which are nouns were either all plural or all singular. I prefer plural.
  • "diseased": teetering on the edge of undue political correctness, but this seems a little pejorative. But what else really works? "[The] sick"? "Ailing"?
  • "senior": a little-used term in the UK. The English page could do with a few synonyms here.
  • "drug_addicted": "drug_addicts" seems better. "[The] drug-addicted" sounds clumsy to my ears.
  • "under_privileged": the underscore seems redundant. "Underprivileged" is far more common here, and it's recognised by my spellchecker too...

--achadwick 11:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

They're all singular, aren't they? I don't mind if these values are plural or singular. More opinions? Changed under_privileged to underprivileged. Kerosin 17:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't like "diseased" because it sounds just like "deceased". I don't have any better suggestions though. It's tough to come up with terms that wouldn't be offensive to someone. -- T99 09:00, 17 May 2011 (BST)
Perhaps a mealy-mouthed phrase like "physical_health"? It sits neatly with "mental_health", and perhaps in common parlance better covers the broad range of what consititutes disease. Although both "physical_health" and "mental_health" do not fit with the rest, as adjectives that can describe groups of people. --Craigloftus 13:54, 18 October 2011 (BST)
As an alternative, break it down. "diseased" is very broad. It can include injuries, disabilities (which have their own value), inherited conditions, structural 'variations' as well as infections. Has there been a search for an existing taxonomy that can be reused or repurposed? --Craigloftus 13:54, 18 October 2011 (BST)
  • How about "family" for services that for example cover "relationship breakdown"? (e.g., Oxfordshire Family Mediation). I see this as social_facility=outreach; social_facility:for=family --Craigloftus 13:54, 18 October 2011 (BST)

Section "Different types of social facilities"

Classification seems good to me. Each type of facility should probably get a Wikipedia link to help clarify what's being described. Common synonyms such as "soup kitchen" for the the food_bank value should be provided. Workshops: not just for disabled people: workshops for rehabilitating offenders are quite common too. --achadwick 12:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about adding pages for all 9 social_facility values with a more detailed description and some examples. Maybe that would be better rather than linking many wikipedia-articles that may differ to our intended tags. I'm quite not sure about "workshops for rehabilitating offenders". That's something completely different to my concept of social_facility=workshop, but it might fit to that category. Just add it with a appropriate description! Kerosin 17:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Update: Added Wikipedia-Links to most of the tags and added offenders to workshops! Kerosin 08:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Adding some discussion that took place about the shop=charity topic:

User Hurricane Coast proposed:

On the whole, I am a big contributor to charities with my time or money. As the holidays approach, it always seems to be close to heart to contribute to those less fortunate. I have proposed a Project of the Week to be about Charity, whether it’s shops, donation centers, food banks or soup kitchens. Perhaps you have more ideas! I would like some help in creating the best practices in tagging for these locations around the world.
We have of course shop=charity. How about amenity= food bank (though I’m not sure this translates to around the world, it’s common in the US)
amenity= homeless shelter or even shop= donation center name= goodwill

Laurence Penney:

I tagged some shop=charity over the last couple of months, but did so reluctantly. I think I might go back and use shop=second_hand. We could use something like business=charity or business_model=charity or charity=* to declare that it is non-commercial. (345) (403)
I've also tagged several charity bookshops as shop=books. For these it seemed even more important to model the type of thing you can buy, rather than the business model - but that may be because I buy lots of second hand books and only a few second hand clothes.

What do you think of avoiding shop=charity?

In the discussion during the social facility proposal, we thought about shops:

but left it that shop=charity was more appropriate. However, we do have social_facility=food_bank which is a step towards a charity-oriented shop, one that specifically gives away food.

Thinking about it from an end-user perspective, I could see 2 types of people with respect to charitable merchandise:

1. Those that are looking for a place to donate goods, whether they are food, clothing, household items, book, even a car
2. Those that are looking for a place to buy second-hand/cheap goods from a store that has social welfare as a higher priority than profits

In either case, the shop key handles the description of the actual merchandise (shop=clothes, shop=books, etc). I think a new type of social facility would help describe the business model as Laurence mentioned:


So for both types of users, they would add the social_facility=shop tag to their search. We may want to have an explicit "donation={yes,no}" tag, I'm not sure if that is necessary. Sean Horgan 21:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC):


"retarted" could be added to the list of social_facility:for=* values (disabled is too vague for this kind of facility). I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if that word has no humiliating implications, if that's the case something like mentally_disabled should considered instead. --AMDmi3 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's unambiguously derogatory these days; please don't use the term "retarded". The Wikipedia page for the conditions covered states that intellectual disability is becoming a suitable replacement in the US and Australia. Saying "[people with an] intellectual disability" seems uncontroversial to me as a British English speaker, but I don't think we should use forms like "[the] intellectually_disabled" or "[the] mentally_disabled", expecially not after "for..." construction. Phrasing it like that lumps people together too much, which is dehumanizing. Better suggestions welcome (please!); it isn't my place to suggest anything. --achadwick (talk) (Nihil de nobis, sine nobis) 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In Britain, "learning disabilities" is the preferred term (for a wide range of disabilities). As for the question of talking about "the learning disabled", the preferred term is "people with learning disabilities", which does not lend itself to concise tagging. On the other hand, "people with disabilities" is generally preferred for physical disabilities, too, as it avoids defining people by their disability. --Davespod (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

method of composition for social_facility:for values

There need to be a documented method to compose several social_facility:for values.

  1. OR logic, for example, a facility for both child and juvenile, may be expressed with commonly used semicolon:
  2. AND logic, for example, a facility for mentally disabled orphans (real-life example (Russian): http://кдди.рф/)

--AMDmi3 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A good point, which makes it clear that rewriting the social_facility:for=* mess is probably necessary for purely formal reasons. Quick answer that'll allow you to get some mapping done: the semicolon value separator is sometimes used for this in OSM, but the general advice is to avoid this system wherever possible because it requires specific support in software.
Completely in the abstract, thinking about improving this tag/namespace using Key:fuel as an example, would something like
social_facility:assists:<group> = { yes | no | <type-of-assistance> }
be a good replacement for social_facility:for=*? It might just be expressive enough.
BTW, in the expression above, the best guideline for the <group> keywords is that it should be the term generally used by the group for themselves. Perhaps it could be extended to be <group-or-condition> as well, but thorough care will be needed to get the terminology right and avoid mindbendingly bad keywords emerging (such as the existing "diseased" — just. what.)
--achadwick (talk) (unclean! unclean!) 19:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Rework social_facility:for into social_facility:assists:*

Building on what was mentioned in the above section, some reworking should be done for this type of field. The precedence for this type of thing tends to be not to group multiple values into one key/value field (eg: social_facility:for=senior;disabled), because that requires extra logic to parse. Instead, it's better to give them each their own key/value pair (eg: social_facility:assists:seniors=yes)

Some similar tags: Access, Key:payment

Here's my proposal for a better schema:

Tag Values Description
social_facility:assists:seniors yes/no/<type of assistance> Elderly people
social_facility:assists:homeless yes/no/<type of assistance> People without homes
social_facility:assists:victims yes/no/<type of assistance> Victims of abuse or other crimes
social_facility:assists:unemployed yes/no/<type of assistance> People without jobs
social_facility:assists:disabled yes/no/<type of assistance> People with physical disabilities
social_facility:assists:mentally_disabled yes/no/<type of assistance> People with mental disabilities
social_facility:assists:juvenile yes/no/<type of assistance> Children who may have committed crimes
social_facility:assists:orphans yes/no/<type of assistance> Children without parents
social_facility:assists:addicts yes/no/<type of assistance> People with drug addiction problems
social_facility:assists:migrant yes/no/<type of assistance> Immigrants; people who have moved from another country/region
social_facility:assists:underprivileged yes/no/<type of assistance> Poor or disadvantaged people
social_facility:assists:children yes/no/<type of assistance> Young people; not to be confused with orphans (see above)

Notes: I think it sounds better to use the plural form of each. I also think we should cut down on redundancies where possible, which is why I removes abused (falls under victims), and diseased (falls under disabled or mentally_disabled). I think a distinction should be kept between disabled and mentally_disabled, because there's a big difference between being (eg) a paraplegic and being schizophrenic. I'm assuming they wouldn't be helped at the same facilities.

--Oddityoverseer (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal! I like the idea, but I'm not sure if "assists" really fits for all types of facilities. Would you say "assists" for food_bank, shelter and outreach? I'm not a native speaker so I will leave it here as discussion. In general I like the idea of social_facility:<placeholder>:migrant

Kerosin (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Another way is to simply bring current value into key and use yes/no as value: social_facility:for:children=yes/no/<type of assistance> --BushmanK (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Children's Centre

With my newborn baby I'm discovering there's such a thing as a "children's centre" in the UK e.g. here. In this case it's mainly a nursery school actually (amenity=kindergarten) but has extended "community centre" type functions. Free drop-in sessions for breastfeeding and children's education play times. I added the social_facility:for=child to try to capture that, but maybe there's something better. I guess the terminology "children's centre" is arguably a bit of a vague newfangled government initiative thing, and what really matters is the range of services on offer there. -- Harry Wood (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend to treat these things separately. Keep amenity=kindergarten on the polygon, as this is the main function. Create a node within the building, describing the community services. Decide if it is open to a general audiences of parents for amenity=community_centre + community_centre:for=parent; or addresses an audience with specific needs, getting professional help from social workers, nurses, for amenity=social_facility + social_facility=outreach + social_facility:for=parent. Choose *:for=parent or =child depending who is the addressee of the specific service (e.g. how to breastfeed addresses parent, while toddler music addresses child, or maybe family). In the specific case, reading the timetable, it seems the general-family sessions prevail, I'd go for amenity=community_centre + community_centre:for=family.